Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Report 02-01INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF February 8, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Durham. Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D Pickering Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S -P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 26/00 and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01 Clublink Corporation (Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.) Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (Lands south of Eighth Concession Road, north of Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 12) City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are approximately 219 hectares in size, and are generally located on the north side of Durham Regional Road No. 31, east of Brock Road, west of Sideline 12 and south of Eighth Concession Road; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); approximately 70 hectares of the subject lands currently support a 27 -hole golf course and related facilities; a site plan showing the existing golf course facility and site conditions is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); clusters of farm buildings are located in three separate locations on the subject lands, and one dwelling currently exists on the east side of Sideline 14; the subject lands are traversed by Michell Creek and an associated west tributary, and by a tributary of Spring Creek; surrounding land uses include agricultural lands and detached dwellings, and the Claremont Field Centre (owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) is located to the east of the subject lands across Sideline 12. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to establish 125 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within two separate development areas on the subject lands in conjunction with the existing and future expanded golf course facility; a site plan showing proposed future improvements to the subject property (including improvements to the existing golf course operation) is provided for reference (see Attachment #3); the proposed residential development would be supported by a combination of communal and private services; a reduction of the applicant's Proposed Subdivision Plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #4); Information Report No. 02-01 Page 2 Development Area #1 is located within a south-east portion of the subject lands, where an existing nine -hole golf academy is currently operating; • nine lots, providing a minimum lot area of approximately 0.4 of a hectare each, and supporting detached dwelling units are proposed on these lands; • each lot is proposed to be serviced by an individual well and private septic system, and would front onto a newly -constructed, public cul-de-sac originating from Durham Regional Road No. 31; • a Conceptual Plan depicting Development Area #1 is provided for reference (see Attachment #5); Development Area #2 is located within a south-west portion of the subject lands, generally west of Sideline 14: • 100 dwelling units, comprising semi-detached and attached dwelling units, are proposed west of a realigned Sideline 14; • these dwelling units are proposed to be constructed in two residential clusters, each with dwelling units fronting a private, condominium road network accessed from Sideline 14; • associated private community facilities (i.e. community centre, tennis court, walking trail, etc.) are also proposed; • 16 lots supporting detached dwelling units on lots providing a minimum lot area of 0.4 of a hectare are also proposed, fronting onto the east and west side of realigned Sideline 14; • a Conceptual Plan depicting Development Area #2 is provided for reference (see Attachment #6); • all of the development located within Development Area #2 is proposed to be serviced by a communal well and sewage treatment facility; the communal servicing facilities are proposed to be located on the west side of Sideline 12, north of Michell Creek. 3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands "Major Open Space" (primarily recognizing Michell Creek and the surrounding valley lands traversing the subject lands), and "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" (within south-west and north-east portions of the subject lands); all of Development Area #1, the eastern -most portion of some of the lots within Development Area #2, and the proposed communal servicing block serving Development Area #2 appear to be located within the "Major Open Space" designation; predominant use of lands in the Major Open Space System shall be conservation, recreation, reforestation, and agriculture and farm -related uses (with the exception that in valleylands in built-up areas, agriculture and farm -related uses are not permitted); almost all of the proposed Development Area #2 appears to be located within the "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" designation; activities and uses within the Permanent Agricultural Reserve shall be primarily agriculture and faun -related uses; Section 5.3.29 of the Regional Official Plan states that Regional Council, in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, shall undertake a feasibility study with respect to the provision of full or partial communal systems to hamlets, country residential developments, rural employment areas and regional nodes in the rural areas; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 3 in December 1999, the Region of Durham adopted Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 to establish communal servicing policies following the completion of a Communal Services Technical Feasibility Study; Amendment No. 60 was appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. to the Ontario Municipal Board and will be considered by the Board, as it affects the subject lands, in conjunction with the subject applications that have also been appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.; - Section 13.2.5 of the Regional Official Plan states that country residential subdivisions, which are limited in both size and number, may be permitted by amendment to that Plan, provided that such development does not: a) change the rural landscape; b) adversely impact agricultural operations; c) adversely impact the environment; or d) represent a use that is incompatible with existing surrounding land uses. Regional Council shall not consider such amendments until a municipality -wide analysis has been prepared which demonstrates the need for and amount of country residential development within the municipality and assesses the long-term cumulative impacts of such development on municipal servicing costs and the natural environment; an analysis was conducted in 1995 by the City of Pickering that resulted in Council's endorsement of rural population growth targets to be incorporated into the Pickering Official Plan (which was under review at the time); - the resultant growth targets (as outlined in Section 2.22 of the Pickering Official Plan) establish the potential for up to between 100 and 600 people in new settlements over a 20 -year time period ending in the year 2016; Sections 13.3.18 to 13.3.22 of the Regional Official Plan further detail various policies and guidelines to adhere to when considering an application for a new country residential development, including: • country residential subdivisions shall not be permitted in the Permanent Agricultural Reserve; • country residential subdivisions shall be individually serviced with drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems (subject to completion of a feasibility study with respect to the provision of full or partial communal systems, clustering within country residential subdivisions may be encouraged to allow for servicing by communal water and sewage systems and as a means of protecting the environment); and, • consideration of the results of the municipality -wide analysis undertaken in accordance with Section 13.2.5 and determine the size of each proposal on its own merit provided that no country residential subdivision shall exceed a size of 50 lots (Local Councils may further reduce the maximum number of lots permitted if deemed appropriate). Section 13.3.23 of the Regional Plan further states that the development of a country residential subdivision shall: a) not be of a size as to detract from the dominance of hamlets as preferred locations of rural residential settlements and activities; b) be unobtrusive and blend into the Region's landscape; c) not detract from the surrounding natural environment or require significant alterations of existing topography, waterways or vegetation; d) not have an adverse cumulative impact on the environment; e) be distinct and well separated from hamlets and other country residential subdivisions; f) be distinct and well separated from urban areas; g) contain a range of lot sizes generally 0.6 of a hectare to 1.0 hectare; h) be serviced with an internal road system, having a minimum of two access points without direct access onto a Provincial highway or a Type A arterial road; i) not be located on lands of high capacity for agriculture, recreation or aggregate resources extraction and not have a negative impact on agricultural activities; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 4 j) not be located in corridors affected by existing or proposed highways, airports, railways, hydro transmission lines and other utilities; k) be in conformity with the Agricultural Code of Practice; 1) not be located within, or contiguous to, or have a negative impact on, environmentally sensitive areas (as identified within that Plan); and, m) be in conformity with the provisions of the area municipal official plan. - the Regional Plan requires an amendment application to designate a country residential subdivision to be accompanied by a settlement capacity study (in accordance with Section 13.3.6 of that Plan), a detailed landscape analysis of the site and adjacent properties, and a planning analysis indicating how the proposal meets the policies of that Plan; the Plan further states that an application for approval of a draft plan for a country residential subdivision shall be subject to the provisions of Section 13.3.9 and 13.3.10 of that Plan, requiring the application to be accompanied by various supporting reports, and outlining conditions to be incorporated into any future draft approval of the proposed development; - Section 2.3.16 of the Regional Plan requires an environmental impact study to be completed for proposed development in proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, or for development applications which may have major environmental impacts, addressing criteria prescribed in that Plan; amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan are required to implement the applicant's proposed development; - the proposed Draft Regional Official Plan Amendment prepared by the applicant is provided as Appendix II to this Report. 3.2 Pickering Official Plan - the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands "Open Space System - Active Recreational Area" (primarily recognizing the existing and future expanded golf course on the subject lands), "Agricultural Area" (the south-west, north-west and north-east portions of the subject lands) and "Open Space System — Natural Area" (the north-west portion of the subject property where a portion of Michell Creek and a west tributary are located); all of Development Area #1, the eastern -most portion of some of the Lots within Development Area #2, and some of the attached units located within the north -most residential cluster within Development Area #2 are located within the Open Space System — Active Recreational Area designation; permissible uses within this designation include active recreational, community and cultural uses, and other related uses, and all uses permissible within Natural Areas; - almost all of the proposed residential clusters within Development Area #2, and the proposed communal servicing block serving Development Area #2, are located within the "Agricultural Area" designation; - permissible uses within Agricultural Areas include primary agricultural uses and complementary and supportive agricultural uses; portions of the valley lands are proposed to be traversed by pipes connecting communal servicing infrastructure, and a proposed walkway travelling northward from Development Area #2 across Spring Creek to a future proposed clubhouse facility; the valley lands along Michell Creek and tributary of Spring Creek are identified as Shoreline and Stream Corridors, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) and contain pockets of Wetlands as outlined on Schedule III — Resource Management to the Pickering Official Plan; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 5 sections 10.5 and 10.10 of the Plan outline policies to adhere to when considering these natural features, including their identification to increase awareness of them, protecting them through public acquisition and/or zoning, promoting their rehabilitation and maintenance in their natural state, and requiring the recommendations of an Environmental Report (as set out in section 15.11 of the Plan) to be implemented; goals for the City's rural system have been adopted by Council (as outlined in section 2.21 of the Plan), including: (a) to protect and enhance the cultural and natural heritage of the rural area, and conserve the rural resource base, including agricultural lands, for existing and future generations; (b) to encourage a vibrant rural economy with a wide range of rural uses and activities, including, (i) primary agricultural uses; (ii) complementary and supportive agricultural uses; (iii)outdoor rural recreational uses; and, (iv)other compatible rural uses that contribute to the diversity of economic • activities in the area; (c) to promote improved social and economic linkages between urban and rural Pickering; (d) to encourage limited rural residential development primarily in hamlets; (e) to encourage rural residential development that is energy efficient, enhances the range of rural housing choices, and is environmentally appropriate in terms of its form, water usage and sewage disposal systems; (f) to encourage the timely and appropriate disposition of lands in rural Pickering owned by the provincial and federal governments; and, (g) to involve residents, business -people, landowners, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in making decisions concerning the rural system. - section 2.31 of the Pickering Official Plan states that Council, by amendment to the Plan, may permit expansions of existing rural settlements and may designate new Rural Settlements, providing: (a) the total population that may be generated from expanding existing settlements and from establishing new rural settlements, shall respect the population targets identified in section 2.22 of the Plan (which establishes, among other growth targets, up to between 100 and 600 people in new rural settlements, including Barclay Estates, Birchwood Estates and Spring Creek, and any others if approved in accordance with the provisions of the Plan); and, (b) the provisions of Chapter Fifteen (Development Review — including requirements for supporting reports and studies when considering various applications) of the Plan are met. sections 15.5 and 15.6 of the Pickering Official Plan further state that local official plan amendment applications within rural lands must be accompanied by: • a Planning Analysis (evaluating the proposal against the relevant goals, objectives, and general intent and purpose of the Plan); • an Agricultural Report (demonstrating that the proposed settlement will not significantly adversely affect the amount or quality of Class 1 to 3 agricultural land, is located and/or operated in compliance with the Minimum Separation Formulae and cannot be accommodated on less significant agricultural lands in a rural settlement or in the urban area); and, • an Environmental Report (including at least the minimum information prescribed in section 15.11 of the Plan). for development in Rural Settlements, section 12.2 of the Plan states that Council shall: a) require development to occur along existing roads, and along new roads introduced in locations identified either on the rural settlement maps or through the review of development proposals; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 6 b) encourage and where possible requires, the scale, character and relationship of new development (including lots, buildings, structures, roads, services and utilities) to be compatible with the scale, character and relationship of existing development, considering features such as the size and shape of lots, lot coverage, building heights, building setbacks, building floor area, building material and design, road widths, street patterns and vegetation; c) encourage new development to enhance the range of housing choice in the settlement and to be innovative in relation to compact form, water usage and sewage disposal; d) require all new development, whether on individual or communal water and sanitary services, to be based on appropriate technical review to ensure the adequate provision of services, protection of the natural environment, the protection of nearby property owners, and compliance with Provincial and Regional standards; and, e) protect for road connections to adjacent lands. - amendments to the Pickering Official Plan are required to implement the applicant's proposed development; - the proposed Draft Pickering Official Plan Amendment prepared by the applicant is provided as Appendix III to this Report. 3.3 Zoning By-law Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 51,29/97, currently zones portions of the subject lands: • "A" — Rural Agricultural Zone, which permits a detached dwelling, agricultural uses, accessory agricultural residential uses and specific home occupations, certain parks and recreational uses (excluding a country club, golf course, driving range and similar outdoor activities) and certain institutional and business uses; • "A/GC" — Rural Agricultural/Golf Course Zone, which permits those uses listed within the "A" zone category outlined above, as well as a golf course and related ancillary uses; and, • "OS -HL" — Open Space — Hazard Lands Zone, which permits conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife, resource management, hiking trails, equestrian routes and golf cart paths. all of proposed Development Area #1, and the eastern -most portion of the proposed lots supporting detached dwellings located on the east side of realigned Sideline 14 within Development Area #2, are currently zoned "A/GC" — Rural Agricultural/Golf Course Zone; the proposed communal servicing block located on the west side of Sideline 12, and the majority of Development Area #2, are currently zoned "A" — Rural Agricultural Zone; portions of the subject lands zoned "OS -HL" — Open Space — Hazard Lands Zone generally recognize significant land surrounding natural features, including Michell Creek and an associated west tributary, and portions of the tributary of Spring Creek that traverse the subject property; although no changes to this established zoning designation on the subject lands is proposed, exceptions to this zoning may be required to allow the proposed pipes connecting communal servicing infrastructure, and the proposed walkway travelling northward from Development Area #2 across Spring Creek to a future proposed clubhouse facility. an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposed development. 3.4 Minister's Zoning Order No. 1 - all of the lands are subject to Minister's Zoning Order No. 1, which is a provincial Order intended to restrict the use of lands surrounding Federally -owned property held for the potential future development of an airport; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 7 this Order was amended by Ontario Regulation 289/98 on June 16, 1998, permitting the subject lands to be developed for golf course uses in accordance with amending Zoning By-law 5129/97; - a further amendment to this Order is required to implement the applicant's proposed development. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (See Attachments #7 to #20) a majority of the comments outlined below were received in response to the Region of Durham's circulation of Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S -P-2000-03. The Region held a Public Information Meeting regarding the Regional Official Plan Amendment Application on August 29, 2000. Minutes from that August 29, 2000 meeting are enclosed (see Attachment #7). 4.1 Resident Comments Mr. J. McGinnis, of the Eighth Concession Road, expressed objection to the subject applications, noting the proposed development is in conflict with policies of both the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering (see Attachment #8); Mr. And Mrs. Wilder, of Sideline 12 both noted opposition to these applications, expressing concerns with negative impact on groundwater supply and prime agricultural lands (see Attachments #9 and #10); Ms. K. Dean, of Montgomery Avenue (Toronto) expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development would do extreme health and environmental damage; would increase demand for roadways; would destroy acres of prime farmland; encourages urban sprawl; is located within a permanent agricultural preserve; would negatively impact ESA's, wildlife areas, coldwater fisheries, surrounding wells, groundwater, and rare plant and animal species; provides no benefits to the surrounding rural community; and uses up most of the remaining rural population targets for Pickering (see Attachment #11); - Ms. A. Jones, Executive Director of Conservation Durham Inc., expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development would negatively impact, among other things, the Permanent Agricultural Preserve, surrounding ESA's, the Duffins Creek Watershed, the surrounding rural community, the Claremont Field Centre, and rare plant and animal species (see Attachment #12); Mr. A. Gillespie, of the Pickering/Uxbridge Townline, expressed objection to these applications (see Attachment #13); Ms. J. Markland expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development will encourage urban sprawl; is located within the Permanent Agricultural Preserve; and will negatively impact important wildlife areas, coldwater fisheries, surrounding wells and groundwater, the Claremont Field Centre, and rare plant and wildlife species (see Attachment'#14); - Mr. And Mrs. Thomas, of Westney Road, expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development encourages the depletion of the Permanent Agricultural Preserve lands; will encourage rural population targets for Pickering to be reached already; will increase traffic congestion; and will negatively impact a surrounding ESA (see Attachment #15). 4.2 Agency Comments Transport Canada — Ontario Region (see Attachment #16) noted that the proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border of Federal Lands being retained for a possible future airport; expressed concern with any proposed development that would be considered incompatible with airport operations; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 8 - noted the proposed development appears to border the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 30, and noted that the developer should advise future tenants or purchasers of potential noise impacts, and suggested that the development not proceed until acceptable acoustical insulation features are implemented; - noted that the applicant should be required to identify mitigating measures designed to reduce the attractiveness to birds (particularly treated effluent and storm water detention ponds); concluded that they generally view the development of residential communities in close proximity, and potentially under aircraft approach paths, to be inconsistent with good planning practices; Durham Region Health Department (see Attachment #17) noted that the proposed private sewage disposal system will be sized for greater than 10, 000 litres per day that will require the review and approval of the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a large on-site sewage works/communal system; Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (see Attachment #18) - noted they granted conceptual approval to past golf course expansion proposal subject to conditions that have not yet been satisfied as the expansion has not yet occurred; noted proposed servicing may potentially have a negative impact on Michell Creek and Spring Creek; requested the future servicing study provide detailed information, including information on the location of the communal service facility and related infrastructure (pipeline crossings), the impact on water quality and quantity and the impacts on the base flow of adjacent creeks; noted specific portions of the proposed residential development (including associated roads and pathways) impacting significant natural features, and requested an Environmental Impact Study be completed to determine impacts and proposed mitigation/buffering measures; requested a preliminary storm water management plan be completed; concluded that they cannot support the proposed development in the absence of outstanding information; Greater Toronto Airports Authority (see Attachment #19) noted the subject lands are adjacent to the eastern border of Federal Lands being retained for a possible future airport; concluded that the proposed development is premature and would not be consistent with good planning practices in light of a number of significant outstanding issues related to the design and operation of a potential future airport and the degree to which these outstanding issues may influence aircraft noise impact on the subject property; Canada Post (see Attachment #20) recommended conditions of draft approval be imposed respecting informing purchasers of mailbox type and location, and consulting Canada Post to determine suitable mailbox placements and surrounding treatment of boulevards, sidewalks, curbs, etc. serving the community mailbox; No Objections or Concerns: - Hydro One Networks Inc., Durham District School Board, and Durham Catholic District School Board. Information Report No. 02-01 Page 9 4.3 Staff Comments - in reviewing the applications to -date, the following matters have been identified by Staff requiring further review and consideration: 4.3.1 Environmental Considerations ensuring the protection and/or improvement to existing natural features and habitats, including, but not limited to, Michell Creek and associated tributaries of that creek and Spring Creek, significant valley lands, wetlands, important natural linkages and ESA's, and significant plant, forest and wildlife communities; ensuring previous commitments to environmental restoration and enhancement are maintained; - assessing cumulative ecological effects of establishing a new settlement in conjunction with the previously approved golf course expansion; maintaining or improving existing ground and surface water quality and quantity, reviewing methods of stormwater management, and assessing impacts on aquatic habitats; reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed communal servicing facilities and their associated impacts; considering tree and vegetation preservation on the subject lands, and the identification of areas requiring protection, reforestation and/or rehabilitation; exploring opportunities for lands supporting significant natural features to be publicly- acquired to promote further protection of those lands; reviewing technical reports submitted in conjunction with the applicant's proposal, and determining their adequacy, both through review by City Staff and appropriate agencies, and through peer -reviews, where warranted; 4.3.2 Rural Growth and Settlement Considerations - reviewing anticipated rural growth trends and assessing the significance of this proposal on anticipated and potential future growth in the City's rural area; - considering potential infrastructure improvements needed to support the proposed development and impacts on existing infrastructure; determine whether the proposed growth is compatible with the scale, character and relationships of existing rural settlements in Pickering; reviewing potential growth characteristics, and establishing, where appropriate, maximum development limits on the subject lands; 4.3.3 Impacts on the Rural Landscape assessing the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing and future expanded golf course facility and surrounding rural land uses; reviewing the impact of the proposed development on suiTounding agricultural lands and operations; - analyzing the impacts of the introduction of communal services for development within the City's rural area; considering design details of the proposed development to assess the compatibility of the resultant scale, character and relationships of the new development with the surrounding countryside (including visibility, development intensity, street patterns, massing and design of buildings, landscaping, fencing, building materials, etc.); 4.3.4 Social and Economic Considerations - reviewing the positive and negative effects resulting from the proposed creation of a new settlement within the City's rural area, considering such matters as, but not limited to, • relationships with the proposed golf course improvements; • economic development and local employment opportunities; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 10 • demands on public services (road maintenance, snow removal, parks and community facilities); • fire protection; • traffic implications; • housing options and densities; • opportunities and implications for future rural development, and resultant cumulative impacts on the growth in the City's rural area; and, • the loss of agricultural lands to non-farm development, considering the type and quality of lands consumed as a result of this proposal; • compliance with agricultural Minimum Distance Separation Formulae; - understanding the potential impacts of the proposed development on the Federal lands being held for a future potential airport, and considering the appropriateness of large-scale residential development being established in close proximity to these lands; 4.3.5 Plan of Subdivision - reviewing and determining the exact boundaries of the proposed development considering natural features, technical requirements and other development activities on the subject lands (and assessing alternatives, if warranted); reviewing the appropriateness of the realignment of Sideline 14 and establishment of a new public cul-de-sac accessing Regional Road No. 31, associated proposed street and lotting patterns, and proposed access point locations; - clarifying the proposed northerly terminus of Sideline 14; 4.3.6 Zoning Matters identifying of appropriate zoning standards to respect and protect natural features; - assessing the proposed forms of housing and establishing, if appropriate, reflective development standards; understanding the implications of the proposed condominium tenure of development, and any resultant unique zoning standards; considering related activities and uses proposed, including pathways, servicing infrastructure, community facilities and other related uses, and limiting and/or regulating these uses through appropriate zoning. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 5.1 General Information - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to be notified of City Council's adoption of a proposed local official plan amendment or passing of any zoning by-law amendment, you must make a written request to: City Clerk City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, ON Ll V 6K7 Information Report No. 02-01 Page 11 if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to proposed regional and local official plan amendment applications or draft plan of subdivision application, you must make a written request to: Mr. A. Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, ON L1N 6A3. 5.2 Approval Authorities for Submitted Applications the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest; the Region has verbally confirmed that the submitted Pickering Official Plan Amendment application is not exempt from Regional approval; - the City's recommendations on the proposed official plan amendments and draft plan of subdivision application will be forwarded to the Region of Durham, which is the approval authority for these applications; the City's recommendations on the proposed Minister's Zoning Order Amendment application will be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the province is the approval authority for this application); - the City of Pickering is the approval authority for the submitted zoning by-law amendment applications. 5.3 Standard Appeal Rights if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Regional Municipality of Durham in respect of the proposed official plan amendments or draft plan of subdivision does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the Regional Municipality of Durham before these applications are considered, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; if a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision of the City of Pickering in respect of the passing of a zoning by-law amendment does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or does not make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the zoning by-law amendment is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. 5.4 Additional Procedural Information Specific to these Applications the subject applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant, Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., and are therefore planned to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board at a future Board Hearing; a prehearing conference is scheduled for Friday, March 30, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in the Pickering Council Chambers; should you wish to be involved with the Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. ongoing appeal, you should attend the March 30, 2001 prehearing conference. Information Report No. 02-01 Page 12 6.0 OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Property History in August 1993, Cherry Downs Development Corporation (later Clublink Corporation) submitted planning applications to allow an 18 -hole expansion and redesign of Cherry Downs Golf Course, the development of up to 300 residential dwelling units on the subject lands (serviced by communal water and sewage systems) and the establishment of commercial uses on the subject property (within the existing clubhouse, approximately 250 square metres in size); amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan (replaced by the Pickering Official Plan), the City's Zoning By-law and Minister's Zoning Order No. 1 were required, and submitted; in September 1995, Clublink submitted a revised development proposal to develop, among other golf -related uses, 225 residential dwelling units (including detached dwellings, attached golf villas and link -type dwellings) on the subject lands; the Executive Committee of Pickering Council, in January, 1996, in considering the applicant's revised proposal, considered a recommendation that the applications be referred back to City Staff to encourage a reduction in the number of requested dwelling units and requesting the submission of revised supporting documentation; - that recommendation was lost; Executive Committee, at that same meeting, recommended that Council endorse "Rural Population Growth Targets" and directed Staff to incorporate these targets into the new Pickering Official Plan under preparation at that time; - the targets are outlined in section 2.22 of the approved Official Plan; Clublink, in April 1996, revised their development proposal further, eliminating residential development, and proposing only a golf course expansion and establishment of an associated new clubhouse facility; the required Zoning By-law Amendment and Ministers Zoning Order Amendment Applications to implement the applicant's revised development proposal were subsequently approved; the applicant obtained conditional site plan approval from the City in October, 1997 to expand the existing Cherry Downs Golf Course; in June 1998, Clublink re -opened dialogue with the City regarding plans to consider residential development and the establishment of a conference centre on the subject lands; in December, 1998, the Region of Durham began consideration of a proposed Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment to allow for the use of communal servicing systems in certain circumstances;. in June, 1999, City Council passed Resolution #131/99 that advised that Council considers an anticipated official plan amendment application from Clublink for residential development on communal services as suitable for consideration as a pilot project that fit within the context of a development of significance to the Region under Durham's proposed amendment for communal servicing subject to all other land use approvals being obtained; in December 1999, the Region of Durham adopted Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 to establish communal servicing policies following the completion of a Communal Services Technical Feasibility Study; - Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 was appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. to the Ontario Municipal Board; beginning in June of 2000, the applicant submitted the various development applications subject to this Report; - all of the subject applications have since been appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture limited to the Ontario Municipal Board, to be heard in conjunction with their appeal of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60, as it affects the subject lands; - in August, 2000, both the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) and Air Transport Association of Canada requested that the Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 13 in December, 2000, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing referred the proposed Minister's Zoning Order Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board, citing Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., the GTAA and Air Transport Association of Canada as those parties requesting the referral to the Board; - a pre -hearing conference regarding these appeals was held in December, 2000. 6.2 Appendix No. I a listing of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report. 6.3 Information Received - the applicant has submitted the following technical reports in support of the proposed development: • "Cherry Downs Recreational Residential Community — A Planning Analysis" prepared by Bousfield, Dale -Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., and dated June 2000; • "Cherry Downs Housing Development EIS" (Environmental Impact Study) prepared by ESG International Inc., and dated July 2000; • "Cherry Downs Golf Club Agricultural Impact Assessment" prepared by ESG International Inc., and dated June 2000; • "Functional Servicing Report" prepared by G.M. Sennas & Associates Ltd., and dated June 2000; • "Servicing Concepts Report for Cherry Downs Golf Club" prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc., and dated June 2000; and, • "Traffic Study" prepared by RGP Transtech Inc., and dated June 2000. the applicant's submitted technical reports and all large-scale plans submitted by the applicant, are available for viewing in the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department. 6.4 Company Information - the agent, Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale -Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc, advises that Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. consists of a real estate venture formed between Clublink Corporation and the Kaitlin Group Ltd.. Angela Baldwin is the representative for Clublink Corporation and Kelvin Whalen is the representative for the Kaitlin Group Ltd. Ron Taylor Planner 2 RT/pr Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department Solicitor for the City Catherine Rose Manager, Policy APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) Mr. J. McGinnis, 2585 Eighth Concession Road (2) B. and J. Wilder, 5335 Sideline 12 (3) Ms. Kathryn Dean, 158 Montgomery Avenue (Toronto) (4) Ms. A. Jones, Conservation Durham Inc. (5) Mr. A. Gillespie, 2045 Pickering/Uxbridge Townline (6) Ms. J. Markland (7) B. and M. Thomas, 3378 Westney Road COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) Hydro One Networks Inc. (2) Transport Canada — Ontario Region (3) Region of Durham Health Department (4) Durham District School Board (5) Greater Toronto Airports Authority (6) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (7) Durham Catholic District School Board (8) Canada Post COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS , (1) none to date MEETING MINUTES (1) Minutes of the August 29, 2000 Region of Durham Planning Committee respecting Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D APPENDIX II TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01 PROPOSED DRAFT REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT Draft Amendment No. — to the Durham Regional Official Plan Purpose: Basis: The purpose of this amendment is to provide Regional policies for the use of communal services. The Durham Regional Official Plan provides for the undertaking of a study to investigate the feasibility of allowing development within Hamlets, Rural Employment Areas, and Regional Nodes, and clustering within Country Residential subdivisions on communal. services. The study is now complete, and it has been determined that it is feasible to permit and/or provide communal services. Actual Amendment: The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by: A) deleting Section 5.3.29, which provides for the preparation of a communal systems feasibility study, in its entirety, and replacing it with the following new policy: "5.3.29 Regional Council may consider the limited use of new Regionally owned and operated communal systems for water supply and/or sanitary sewerage in rural settlements where Council deems it necessary to deal with a health or environmental problem. The installation of a communal system in this circumstance shall be subject to the principles of Sections 13.3.12 and 13.3.13." B) renumbering policies 5.3.30, 5.3.31 and 5.3.32 and adding a new Section 5.3.30 as follows: "5.3.30 Regional Council may also consider, on a case by case basis and by amendment to this plan, the approval of country residential developments serviced by privately owned and operated communal systems for water supply and/or sanitary sewerage. The consideration of development on a privately owned and operated communal system shall be subject to the following: a) the development being integrated with a land -extensive use, such as a golf course, that is viable over the long term and is available for the disposal of treated effluent; b) the application being accompanied by a report prepared by a qualified professional providing: i) an evaluation of alternatives for servicing the site; ii) an inventory of the environmental characteristics of the site and possible impacts from the proposed services; iii) an evaluation of the suitability of the site for communal systems including the capability of the soils to support the safe and long-term use of private sewerage systems and the long-term availability of water of sufficient quality and quantity without adversely affecting existing wells; iv) an evaluation of alternative communal systems; v) a preliminary design of the preferred communal system, including collection and distribution systems, water treatment, sewerage treatment and disposal systems to municipal standards; and vi) systems maintenance and operations procedures and protocols, monitoring program and system failure contingency plan. c) the owner entering into a Responsibility Agreement with the Region providing for, among other matters: i) design and construction of the communal system to Regional and the Ministry of the Environment standards; 3 ii) financial guarantee to ensure that no Regional funds are required for the construction, maintenance, operation, repair, replacement or upgrading of the communal system(s) in the event of default by the owner and to mitigate risk associated with environmental liability; iii) a definition of default; and iv) operation and maintenance standards to the satisfaction of the Region and the Ministry of the Environment including easements, rights of entry for inspection and monitoring." C) In light of the new Section 5.3.29, which enables the consideration of Communal Systems for rural settlements, and new Section 5.3.30, which enables the consideration, on a case by case basis, of the use of privately owned and operated communal systems, deleting parts of the second sentence of Section 13.3.5, which are no longer required, such that the Section now reads as follows: "13.3.5 Development within hamlets shall be individually serviced with private drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems where ground water quantity and quality permits and in compliance with the standards of the Region and the Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Municipal water service may be extended to a hamlet, without an amendment to this Plan or the area municipal official plan, in accordance with Sections 13.3.11 and 13.3.12 and provided a settlement capacity study as outlined in Section 13.3.6 has been undertaken. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Plan, where municipal water is to be extended, the capacity of such service shall be designed to service only the hamlet area delineated in the area municipal official plan." D) In Tight of the new Section 5.3.29, which enables the consideration of Communal Systems for rural settlements, and new Section 5.3.30, which enables the consideration, on a case by case basis, of the use of privately owned and operated communal systems, 4 deleting subsection i) in Section 13.3.6, which is no longer required, and renumbering subsection j) to i) such that the Section now reads as follows: "13.3.6 The delineation of the limits of a'hamlet, and the details of the land uses to be permitted within a hamlet shall be incorporated in the area municipal official plan following the conclusions and recommendations of a settlement capacity study to the satisfaction of the Region, the conservation authority and the Ministries of the Environment and Energy and Natural Resources which shall include a cumulative impact assessment of the following: a) an analysis of the hydrogeological regime in the area to determine the availability and quality of ground water on a long-term basis; b) an assessment of the impact of future development on existing ground water quantity and quality and on existing sources of drinking water, including municipal, communal and private wells; c) an assessment of the long-term suitability of the soil conditions for the effective operation of private sewage disposal systems; d) an identification of any existing restrictions to future development; e) an assessment of surface drainage; f) an inventory of cultural heritage resources and an assessment of how new growth will be complementary to, and consistent with, the historic character of the area; g) an environmental inventory and assessment of the impact of new growth on the natural, built and cultural environments; h) a statement of conformity with the Agricultural Code of Practice; and 5 i) an assessment of the impact on agricultural lands and identification of directions for growth which will minimize such impacts." E) deleting Section 13.3.20 and replacing it with the following: "13.3.20 Country residential subdivisions may be individually serviced with drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems which comply with the standards of the Region and Ministry of the Environment and Energy. In addition, in accordance with Section 5.3.30 and the provisions of Sections 13.3.27 and 13.3.28, country residential developments may be serviced by communal water and sewage systems in order to encourage clustering and as a means of protecting environmental features." F) renumbering policies 13.3.27, 13.3.28, 13.3.29, 13.3.30, 13.3.31 and 13.3.32 and adding new Sections 13.3.27 and 13.3.28 as follows: "13.3.27 Country residential developments serviced by communal water and sewage systems shall be considered as a specialized form of country residential subdivision. Accordingly, the policies in Sections 13.3.18, 13.3.20, 13.3.23 (a) to (f) and (h) to (m), 13.3.24 and 13.326 shall apply to this form of development. In addition, the policies outlined in Section 13.3.28 shall apply. 13.3.28 A country residential development serviced by communal water and sewage systems shall: a) be integrated with a land -extensive use, such as a golf course, that is viable over the long term and is available for the disposal of treated effluent; b) generally not have a land area of greater than 50 hectares, including residential Tots/units, public/internal roads and communal open area; c) generally comprise no more than 20 percent of the total land area of the integrated residential development/land- extensive use; and G) 6 d) be limited to a number of units as set out on Schedule 5, determined on a site -by -site basis having regard to the provisions of Sections 13.3.23 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 13.3.28 (b) and (c), and subject to compliance with the population targets set out in this Plan and in the area municipal official plan." In Tight of the new Section 5.3.30, which enables the consideration, on a case by case basis, of the use of privately owned and operated communal systems, deleting the second sentence of Section 15.2.4, which is no longer required, such that the Section now reads as follows: "15.2.4 Regional Nodes within rural areas shall be serviced with private drilled wells and a private waste disposal system." H) "XX Pickering Implementation: Interpretation: amending Map A4 — Regional Structure, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment, and Schedule 5 — "Country Residential Subdivisions" by adding the following: Part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Concession 7, former Township of Pickering now in the City of Pickering 125 (on communal services)" The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL. MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM REGIONAL STRUCTURE •m••- UREAN AREA BOUNDARY •� • URBAN AREA U BONN DORY DEFERRED LIVING AREA LEGEND URBAN AREAS • • fiEN EMPLOYMENT AREA S G14 LIMN CENTRAL AREA SUB CENTRAL AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS DEVELOPAB %%/DEVELOPABLE MUNICCIP LSALPWATER ELL _-4-- ON PRIVAE%%ELL L L SEWER WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS SYSTEMS AREAS iiIIIIIIIIIII_. PRIVATE WASTE DION , POSAL�S STEMS AGRICULTURAL, AREAS PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL M GENERAL AGRICULTURAL RESERVE AREA PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL RESERVE SUBJEC T TO SECTION 14.3 MAJOR OPEN SPACE SYSTEM OAK RIDGES MORAINE WATERFRONT • MARINA • RECREATIONAL NODE • TOURIST ACTIVITY NODE HAMLET MAJOR OPEN SPACE SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL A WATERFRONT.PLACE UN UN MI WATERFRONT LINKS OPENSPACE LINKAGES RURAL SETTLEMENTS O COUNTRYRESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (SEE SCHEDULE FOR DESCRIPTION) RURAL EMPLOYMENT AREA L (SEE SCHEOULE(f FOR DESCRIPTION) REGIONAL NODES • eREGIONAL RODE (SEE SECTION I E FOR DESCRIPTION) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SEE MAP B FOR DESIGNATIONS THE FOLLOWING 15 SHOW% SELECTIVELY. FOR EASE OF INTERPRETATION OF OTHER DESIGNATIONS ONLY. DUSTING FUTURE ARTERIAL ROAD ..+... ..... ... FREEWAY GO RAIL • GO STATION • j'� SPECIAL AREAS IL Z -1 SPECIAL STUDY AREAS r A ISPECIALPOLICY AREAS L�� J RESOURCE EXTRACTION 4 AREAS (SEE SCHEDULE FOR DESCRIPTION) R2 REFERRED TOTHE ONTARIO MUNK IPAL BOARD i"C.:; ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS D2 DEFERRED BY THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPALAFFAIRL N.T.S. EXHIBIT "A" TO AMENDMENT NO. APPENDIX III TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01 PROPOSED DRAFT PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: The purpose of this amendment is to add policies to Table 11 of the Official Plan to allow for the use of communal services and clustering in Country Residential developments and to, redesignate portions of the Cherry Downs property totaling 31.5 hectares to Country Residential, with appropriate site-specific policies, in order to permit the development of a 125 -unit recreational residential community. The lands proposed to be redesignated consist of two separate areas within the Cherry Downs ownership, the former being an area of approximately 27 hectares located generally on the west side of Sideline 14, north of the 7'h Concession Road, and the latter being an area of approximately 4.5 hectares located on the north side of the 7'h Concession Road, east of Sideline 14. The lands affected are described as Part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Concession 7, City of Pickering. PROPOSED The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: AMENDMENT: 1. Revising Table 11, by adding a second sentence to the "Country Residential" row under the "Development and Growth Characteristics" column, so that it reads as follows: "Large lot residential subdivisions on an internal road with no growth potential. As an exception to the foregoing, clustered forms of country residential development serviced by communal water and sewage systems, and developed by way of a plan of condominium, may also be permitted, in accordance with provisions set out in Chapter 12." 2. Adding a new Section 12.17 (Settlement 15: Cherry Downs) as follows: "12.17 City Council shall, a) ensure that development is undertaken in a manner that respects the rural character of the surrounding lands; b) ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner that respects natural features within and nearby the settlement, including the habitat, linkage, and corridor functions the natural features perform; c) endeavour to ensure the country residential environment of the settlement is maintained once developed; d) limit the number of residential units permitted in the Zoning By-law to 125; and e) allow a maximum of 9 units to be serviced by individual water and septic systems, with the remainder to be served by communal systems. 3. Revising Schedule I by redesignating the lands shown to "Country Residential" as shown on Schedule "1" attached. IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. SCHEDULE ITO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN SHEET 3OF3 LAND USE STRUCTURE OPEN SFAOt. SYSTEM NATURAL AREAS ▪ ACINE HECNFATIONAL AREA, RURA1. 8E111, EMENiS • COUNIRY RESIDEINNA1 ® RURAL CLUSTER, ® RURAL. ...Mtn, FREEWAYS AND MAJOR LTIIX ES CONENOLI.Ell ACCI.SS ?RCAS OTHER DESIGNATIONS 4FAluN URBAN stun AREA VAAC.Arc11LFU.RAL ARFA9 RUNAI. S11IDY ARMS EEt CAUCJ'TICNS (... ...uo.. 3.71) r.r F[OSR.. Aipu+11 V.IH1S = orrFRRALs N.T.S. Schedule "1" to Pickering Official Plan Amendment No. ATTACHMENT#J__TO INFORMATION REPORT# ©� -O I O �L�.(f� WLJ�J�.LLL/ UI SI _ I IRFGIONAL J� =D'�`IPE`INE CQNCEISSION ROAD IGHTH °NCESSIO ROAD O PROPOSED COMMUNAL SERVICING BLOCK IN 0 DURHAM REGIONAL RO W PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA #2 0 NO. 31 DEVELOPME AREA #1 • • • •.. • O City of Pickering Planning & Development Department CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. SUBJECT LANDS AND RELATED APPLICATIONS ri CHERRY DOWNS PROPERTY N DATE JAN 17, 2001 ATTACHMENT#ATO INFORMATION REPORT# Da -6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS n L kANO West rt ibu for GHTH CONCESSION ROAD, --.t I STING M BUILDINGS Y�1 W 0 W F- F - i 2 r EXISTING N.T.S. STVEAT N-COIIOi$IION ROKb-REGIONAL ROAr"'"-'"( EXISTING GOLF COURSE N/ 1 lqure 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ATTACHMENTka_TO INFORMATION REPORT# PROPOSED FUTURE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS L ONTH CONCESSION ROA ti 4 it PROPOSED ; CLUBHOUSE 144,4 - - iik.retri• m•-• memo 2 9 0 ----- ^ - -!•61111141. =IN MI IN N.T.S. SlEVENT R -C-O-N-C ES S ION OKO-RE. IONAL ROA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GOLF COURSE Figure CHERRY DOWNS MASTER PLA ATTACHMENT# I TO INFORMATION REPORT# 1 APPLICANTS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN SP -2000-03 AREA TABLE Residential Singles 6013 1-25 10.467 hat oar a 01. 1 I '_ Lor a 0111063311311.1 i Residential Cluster mock 28 12.985 " • — `1" a ' Lar 12 Residential Reserve maks 2728 0.080 — �• ggl CONCESSION R8$fL A' -- Vacant mock 29 6.064 •�' '1 55. +�' ����-"'—'a�n,•� ..� — b-� mock 70 0.189 �. !I ry ServicBuffering Servicing mock 71 0.086 r -... ;yl 11 Set-icing/Maintenance mod 72 6.685 1 �\ ! tl i .1 20m Roads 871m 1.807 _.. _.• \� I rnwnawi tyros i Total 38.363 hat ; OWNED By "'R"1•'Ir• I It UNIT COUNT Estate Lots 25 1 11 Residential Clusters 100 I !< Total 125 units 1 1 � 6 C ES F Lor la) rm¢s aal � E ( i '• 1.1101131.110113,60.6IlLINOS )_ MED By .PPS oo i \. \ ti• 1, . i 1 1 �RTR i,i Lar w 1 g 1,, 051TvN V2 LOT 16 c166331av T II n , i II 1 Q A 1 !1 ,a1 4i Aril 1 .. ' n ; 11 1 1.C ; g ww ''!j UNos >; r OWNED RPaCINr !I E• — y..0 .`_ 11 J +.6•.111111. ; 1 i Il I 2 C 4„\ rnwruwi vans ` ansEo IN M1,1C1M 1 swn10 I1/2.13`r. LOT 11 BLOCK 32 SERVICNB7 MAINTENANCE 8.888111 PROPOSED 1 COMMUNAL ��!! SERVICING H _--- fi 1/2 Cr LOT 16 > i , 18!��}� ELOCK28 Ts CLUSTER 12885 M s�ELot r3 �`E::10T fslr:'... .,. k .'.:.. :: t; 1PA, 3sx (# LOCK �.. I iI :�RESIDENT& if Ii y10305536// c d I 11 c !!l € '11 i' _ 23 19 VAACA!TT 6.087 ha fdi " ' PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 11 17 • 1; 1 /7 AREA aF1 PROPOSEDIMF DEVELOPMENT AREA 12 1 1 1 IL �+ -v'" "�®' I' Al 0.1111EDAMXWMALW APFIJCAHTM' IIIJJJ!!!i! Ill 11:11O I 23 iii, 7th CONCESSION ROAD 11.-0 REGIONAL ROAD No. 31."r- "12:1"4r -r I ;�.,.., -�•.. ........ or= cmc • M 1 O 13 _ e I:MEMO/1 6 m`r_ e. Ai ATTACHMENT# 5 TO INFORMATION REPORT# C O I CONCEPTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA #1 CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. EXISTING CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE SITE DATA - AREA 1: SITE AREA - 12.2 ACRES ESTATE SINGLES, TOTAL - 9 T ATTACHMENT #,ATO INFORMATION REPORT# `Z- O 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA #2 CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. SITE DATA - AREA 2: SITE AREA - 67.0 ACRES ESTATE SINGLES, TOTAL - 16 ATTCHED DWELLINGS TOTAL - 100 DWELLINGS TOTAL - 116 ___ nNIS AUGP WAS PRODUCED 6Y RIE CITY OF PICKERING PUNNING & DEYECOPMENE DEPAREIAEN), JANUARY 15, 2001. oLr GJ LIED ATTACHMENT#ZTO INFORMATION REPORT# (YJ - 0 YJl•lLI- fl UlJflflrtlI rI-1,111J.AN w I The Regional Municipality of Durham MINUTES r • c.' PLANNING COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2000 A regular meeting of the Planning Committee was held on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 in the Planning Department Main Boardroom, Lang Tower, West Building, 4th Floor, 1615 Dundas Street East, Whitby, Ontario at 10:00 a.m. Present; Councillor Parish, Chair Councillor Dickerson, Vice-Charr' Councillor Gadsden Councillor Harrell Councillor Para Regional Chair Anderson left the meeting at 12:00 noon Absent: Councillor Diamond Councillor Drumm Also Present: Councillor Johnson Councillor Moffatt • Councillor L. O'Connor Councillor Shier Staff Present: A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning N. Chornobay, Director, Strategic Planning J. Blair, Director, Current Operations T. Gettinby, Manager, Policy Planning and Special Studies B. Hodgins, Senior Planner, left the meeting at 1:30 p.m. G. McGregor, Planner, attended the meeting at 1:25 p.m. and left at 1:35 p.m. N. Rutherford, Planner R. Szarek, Planner, attended the meeting at 12:05 p.m.and left at 1:10 p.m. K. Yew, Manager, PIan,Implementation T. Sloley, Manager, Engineering, Planning and Studies, Works Department, left the meeting at 1:35 p.m. D. Bowen, Committee Secretary 130 ATTACHMENT# TO INFORMATION REPORT# C; - 0 str c5 ' ee ei; ILVM vurt u -u i roil u71i7� utr i Planning Committee 2 _ August 29, 2000 1, ADOPTION OF MINUTES. MOVED by Councillor'Dickerson, (132) "THAT the minutes of the regular Planning Committee meeting held on June 20, 2000 be adopted." CARRIED 2, COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS a) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PUBLIC MEETINGS The Chair explained that this meeting involves two statutory public information meetings under the Planning Act to deal with two proposed amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan. He advised that the Committee will be dealing with the application from Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd: first and the Wilfrid Bog issue will be dealt with next followed by the application from Youngfield Farms Limited. The Chair advised that the purpose of the public meetings is to provide information about the applications and to hear submissions. He added that a decision to approve or deny these applications is not being made at this time, The Chair further advised that notices of the public meetings were published in the appropriate newspapers. He also advised that a public meeting report for each amendment proposal has been prepared by the Regional Planning Department containing background information. He noted that copies have been made available to the public and can be obtained at the reception area. He added that the reports are to be received for information today by the Planning Committee. The Chair advised the public that it is important to make a verbal submission at these public meetings or a written submission as soon as possible after these meetings and prior to Regional Council making a decision, He explained that if a person who submits an appeal is not on record as having made a verbal or written submission, the appeal may not be considered valid by the Ontario Municipal Board. The Chair further advised that the Planning Department will continue to process each of these applications, including receiving and reviewing submissions. He noted that at a later date a recommendation report for each application will be presented to Committee and the Committee's recommendations will be dealt with by Regional Council at a subsequent meeting, If adopted, Regional Council will give notice of adoption, and 131 ATTACHMENT#_]—TO INFORMATION REPORT# ea -01 btr CD ' IJ) 171 • lcrl'1 UUICI1-U I rLhk'YY1I`Ila U[J" I r.9/ 117 - 3 - August 29, 2000 Planning Committee Council's decision' will be 'subject to a twenty day appeal period. If no appeals are received, Council's decision will be final. The Chair further advised that persons making submissions today will be notified of future meetings of Planning Committee and Council dealing with each of these applications. b) FIRST PUBLIC MEETING — APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, SUBMITTED BY CHERRY DOWNS CO - VENTURE LTD., TO PERMIT A COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED PERMANENT OF PICKERI GLFILE;L RESERVE OPA 2000-006 #2000 -EP -611 SPACE, IN THE CITY The Chair called upon Ms. Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner, to give a presentation, 3. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a) MS. BARB HODGINS, SENIOR PLANNER, RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Hodgins outlined in detail. the contents of Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61. She advised that the application proposes a country residential subdivision with 125 units within the Permanent Agricultural Reserve designation in the City of Pickering. With the aid of a map, Ms. Hodgins described the size and location of the lands owned by the applicant and the existing uses. She also showed the two locations for the proposed new residential developments and described the servicing being proposed for each. Ms. Hodgins also provided information on surrounding land uses. She also reviewed the technical reports submitted with the application and noted that an Environmental Impact Study was received last week and will undergo the peer review process. Ms. Hodgins also reviewed previous applications and approvals. She then reviewed the current proposed amendment. Ms. Hodgins also reviewed the concurrent applications and appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant. She also reported on the agency comments received from Transport Canada, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, the Health Department, and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority. Ms. Hodgins responded to questions from members of the Committee, The Chair invited public comments. 132 ATTACHMENT# 7 TO INFORMATION REPORT# Q - til • 1.71- 1'1 uur\r,s-, I r U111111111-1 VLr 1 Planning Committee - 4 - r. J/1G August 29, 2000 4. DEPUTATIONS a) MR. BRIAN MOSS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, CLUBLINK PROPERTIES LIMITED, AND MR. PETER SMITH, BOUSFIELD, DALE - HARRIS, CUTLER & SMITH INC., PLANNING CONSULTANTS, 3 CHURCH STREET, SUITE 200, TORONTO, ONTARIO M5E 1 M2, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, RE:. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Brian Moss advised that ClubLink will be responsible for expansion of the golf course and new clubhouse while their joint venture partner, Country Club Communities (a division of the Kaitlin Group), will manage all of the real estate on the property. Mr. Moss also commented on the proposed reservoir that will be used for the golf course. He advised that it would be a five acre pond, with the potential to expand, made up of a combination of stored water, treated effluent and surface water. Mr. Moss also indicated that testing has•cbnfirrned a good potable water source to service the real estate component. Mr. Peter Smith highlighted the changes with respect to the residential component from 1993 and the reduction to 125 residential units, He tadvised that the resulting argets for growth in both thepRegonall Official Plan and the Pipopulationulation figures are win the rurl ckerng 9 Official Plan, Mr. Smith ckerinls discussed Pian and zotus ning ngfthe by-lawPlicatlon for amendment to the Pickering Official Mr. Smith also provided his interpretation of the communal services policies contained in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Pickering Official Plan and the Regional Official Plan, He concluded by listing five benefits of communal services including environmental, conservation, compact form of development, housing choices, and better community amenities. Mr. Smith responded to questions from members of the Committee. The ort wererecommendationsaptdd ihe meeting [See Pages 8 and 9ontained in Commissioner's , Item 2 c)l0-P 61 were adopted 133 ATTACHMENT#LTO INFORMATION REPORT# (Y)-- 0 I • ' ,Planning Committee -5 • AF AIRS & b) CO. STEVE SHAW, ICA7 ONS, GREATERVICE-PTORONTO ARESIDENT, CORPORATE TS ORTS AFCOMMUNUTHORITY, LESTER LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, P.O. BOX 6031, 3111 CONVAIR COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 ' L5PP 1 B2, RE: Mr. Steve Shaw appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. He noted that the proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border ofthe thefeder l lands ugh there being retained for a possible future airport. He explained no commitment from the federal government for these lands and no plans for an airport, in light of the number of outstanding issues related to the design and operation of a possible airport and the degree to which these future decisions would influence the aircraft noise impact at the subject property, it is his View that the proposed development is premature. A written submission from Mr. Shaw was included in the handouts distributed at the meeting. Mr. Shaw responded to questions from members of the Committee. The recommendations contained inCommissioner's i Pages 8 and Report 2,c)]. ort 00 P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [S c) LORNEALMACK, P.O. 1, 364 OLD KINGSTON SCARBOROUGH, ONTARIO, MIC 4ZON BEHALF OF GREEN DOOR ALLIANCE RE: COMMISSIONE S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Lorne Aimack appeared before the Committee on behalf of Green Door Alliance In opposition to the proposed residential development. He expressed concern over the application being in front of the Region before Pickering Council has dealt with It, Mr. Aimack also commented that urban sprawl is the issue that concerns him and not communal services, He discussed the negative impacts and costs associated with urban sprawl. Mr. Aimack also described surrounding land uses that in his view were not correctly depicted on the map. He undertook to provide the Planning Department with a list in this regard. ort The recommendations In the meetingd tn Commissioner's [See Pages 8 and 9,eItem 2.c)]. 0--61 were adopted later August ca, — 134 ATTACHMENT# 7 TO INFORMATION REPORT# 2.7 0 JLI LJ uu J. • .1. , 1 LRS" M • . 1 u • n la. iv vu . Planning Committee - 6 August 29, 200a d) MS. ANGIE JONES, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2, RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Angie Jones appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. She made reference to a statement contained in the "GTA Country Side Strategy' document that there will be no active farms below the Oak Ridges Moraine or Niagara Escarpment in fifty years and she stressed the importance of protecting farmland in Durham Region and not allowing it to become an area for urban sprawl, Ms. Jones also expressed environmental concerns and stressed the importance of clean, drinkable water, She added that the property is also the habitat of the protected Red Shouldered Hawk. Ms. Jones also discussed a discrepancy between the water amounts that were given to Pickering Council in a previous application and what was in an application to the Province, Ms, Johes also expressed concem that the notification period for this public meeting was insufficient and also in conflict with the OMB pre -hearing being held in a different location and affecting the same members of the public. For these reasons she suggested another public hearing be held. Ms. Jones also commented that she would like an official position from Pickering Council on this application. A written submission from Ms. Jones was included in the handouts distributed at the meeting. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. e) MS. SUE MCINERNEY, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Sue McInerney appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. She expressed concern about the possible negative impacts on her private well water suppjy. She also questioned the safety of communal sewage systems and asked who is responsible for correcting any problems. Ms. McInerney also stressed the importance of protecting agricultural lands in north Pickering. She also expressed the viewpoint that thls is not a hamlet expansion. Ms. • McInerney advised that she has lived at her present address for sixteen years. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2,c)]. 135 tr CD ' L7U ATTACHMENT#�TO INFORMATION REPORT# 0 I ELL • ion•, uur<nra•, rtw1urink, utr-1 • Planing Committee f) August 29, 20ruu' le MR. GORDON DUNCAN, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 . Mr. Gordon Duncan appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. He expressed concern about the possible negative impacts on his water supply. He Indicated that he has lived at his present address for thirty-six years but for the past five years he has had to buy water and his personal opinion is that the golf course may have contributed to his low water supply. Mr. Duncan also expressed concern about the location of the proposed reservoir. In his view it should be placed in the centre of the applicant's property and not in the backyards of adjacent property owners. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted tater in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2,c)]. g) MR. STEVE MURRAY, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Steve Murray appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. He advised that he has lived at his present address for thirty years. Mr. Murray expressed concern that this is just the first phase of a much larger urban scale subdivision. He suggested placing a moratorium on any future applications for additional housing. Mr. Murray also questioned the status of the proposed hotel and conference centre that was part of an earlier proposal. Mr. Murray also questioned the need for more golf courses. He also commented on the amount of water that CIubLlnk uses at its Milton golf course. Mr. Murray also discussed a discrepancy between the water amounts that were given to Pickering Council in a previous application and what was in an application to the Province, Mr. Murray also expressed concern about the possible negative impacts on his well water supply. He also urged protection of rural lands. Mr. Murray responded to questions from members of the Committee. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting (See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. h) MS. PAT HORA, R,R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Pat Hora appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. She indicated that her property has been in her family almost fifty years. Ms. Elora expressed concern about 136 ATTACHMENT# 7 _TO INFORMATION REPORT# CrQ - f) SEP 25 '00 01:14PM DURHAM PLANNING DEPT i) the possible negative impact on fish habitats in area streams. She also expressed concern about water quality, noting a recent problem with vegetable coliform in her well water. The recommendations contained In Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. MR, CHRIS WILLENS, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Chris Willens appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development, He expressed concern about water quality and quantity and suggested the Region hire an expert to review the water studies presented by the applicant. Mr. Willens also expressed concern about urban sprawl and suggested there be a logical policy for rural development. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)], There were no further comments from those present at the meeting. Written submissions from the following individuals were included in the handouts distributed at the meeting: - Judith Wilder; - Jack McGinnis; - Barrie & Marion Thomas; - Jessica Markland; - Alastair Gillespie; - Bill Wilder; and - Kathryn Dean 2. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS c) APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, SUBMITTED BY CHERRY DAWNS CO -VENTURE LTD., TO PERMIT A COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL RESERVE AND MAJOR OPEN SPACE, IN THE CITY OF PICKERING, FILE: OPA 2000-005 (42000-P-61) Report #2000-P-61 was received from A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning. A staff presentation and delegations were heard earlier in the meeting. [See Pages 3 to 8, Items 3.a) and 4.a) top]. 137 ATTACHMENT#l_TO INFORMATION REPORT# 02 0 I Jtr GJ U, J.• 1Ur1't uURrlr I rLP11111111,3 UL -1 1 Onlai l° Municipal Board 655 Bay Street. Suite 1500 Toronto On MSG 1E5 Telephone: (416) 326.8800 Facsimile: (416) 326.5370 Commisslon deb Oakes muntctpates de I'Onlarlo 655 rug Bay, bureau 1500 Toronto On MSG 1 5 6800 TSI4phone: ( ) Telecopieue (416) 326-5370 August 8, 2000 BY REGULAR MAIL To: All Solicitors, Parties and Participants r . lU/ Ltd Dear Sir/Madam: Re: O.M.B. Case No.: PL00D037 O.M.B. File No.: 0000008 Appeal by Sandhill Aggregates Ltd., Cougs Investments Limited and Cherry Downs Co -venture Ltd. Proposed Amendment No. 60 to the Durham Regional Official Plan Regional Municipality of Durham Please be advised that the Board has now reserved two days sor the next ng at 10:00 a.m. ing ng conference on the above mentioned matter, necessary, Tuesday, August 29, 2000 at the Region of Durhar^ — Yours truly, Louis Bitonti Planning Assistant [416] 326-6797 ATV' r'•4..: Lf AUG 1 1 2000 ' • CD • ) " P-11 08-23-2000 11:44 ATTACHMENT#SLT0 INFORMATION REPORT# (� - 0 1 905 428 8074 RRI1C Via Fax: 905-436.6112 August 23, 2000 Ms. Barb Hodgins Senior Planner Durham Region I AUG 2 3 2000 P.01 Re: clubLink Aopiisptien Dear Ms. Hodgins, It is my understanding that ClubLink has submitted a development application to the Region, — apparently for housing the be built on the Cherry Downs property in North Pickering. I have alsp learned that there will be a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 29th to discusp this matter, I am sending this letter since I am not available to attend this meeting. 'And I wanted to raise the following points in this regard. • I have been opppsed, as have hundreds of other area residents, to the previous applications submitted by ClubLink; • I have received ho notice regarding this current application, which is somewhat surprising sincejl have repeatedly placed my name on the record as being an interested partyl,, • This proposed development, if it bears any similarity to previous applications by ClubLink, is clearly in conflict with policies of both the Region and the Town of Pickering. I would appreciate receiving any relevant information regarding this matter. And I would ask for the right to be heard on this matter, prior to any action being taken by the Region, Thank you for you cooperation and assistance in this regard. Jack McGinnis 2585 8th Concesslo0 Claremont, L1Y 1A2 Home phone — 905}649-2278 Work phone— 905427-0009 Fax 905{428-8074 ATTACHMENT # TO INFORMATION REPORT # 0. - 01 11 td WUzZ:TT ewe zz .6nu i El GEE PI! E) DCE—Vrts:C'FL7;Ft‘E'14:TINITTCA):"IEY1Filki4NENC'T SEI7t7GZS9OS : 'ON XI:1J SWOOD : WV ATTACH MENT#JSZTO INFORMATION REPORT# - Qf far 2811 ATTACHMENT #.ISZ_TO INFORMATION REPORT# (Y' 0 1 7r" G.. a IC. 1 01 l w. 1 k..4, 1 hr-w-�► 4:::%444.A.A.SL4A „,„ 4444...44, I S -t I q 9 °► . �. t.4 A.&ot 417 0..6..ca..A.rtr.twoJ 2 8/Y ATTACHM ENT #1.LTO INFORMATION REPORT# 02- 01 C,e.�. 4 ,-+�- 1 I"A•LA i1.5"240 310411 c- Q 1 1 ra-g6 a' 0 h t $ �Li �'-ti•�-..�.-.e—�-�..e 1/4')'" vim.: k•Afto.AN 144.4741.144 P� 288 ATTACHMENT# In TO INFORMATION REPORT# 01 -t:'(it-La.u.cag , , l I [fa:. - h.a i11, :otot rou42.44.4.49 1•4f et.‘,0L 1 Ik �, t'a,.,t,41/4 ac w..A /1 Ia . 20 ATTACHMENT# L TO INFORMATION REPORT# 69-01 Kathryn J. Dean 158 Montgomery Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4R 1E2 phone / tel (416) 486-6192 fax / telecopi,�4,y qgd, ka dean a s atico.ca FAX AUG 2 8 2000 1 Date: .August 26, 2000 gTo /,q: Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner, _,.::.'�;.k.:'•�..� _�_. ,......�- •- Durham it2e.0gn, op» acc, -- '$ From / De: ' Kathryn Dean, Ontario Citizen / Resident of the GTA Re /Au Sujet de: Cherry Downs Co -Venture Ltd. Application to Amend Durham Region OP 60; Regional File Number OPA 2000.005 No. of pages (incl. this cover sheet) / No. de pages (incluant la couverture): 4 As a citizen of the Greater Toronto Area, who is experiencing the adverse taxation and irresponsible land stewardship effects of urban sprawl, I am writing to notify/ you of my firm opposition to the above-mentioned development of 125 homes on Cherry Downs' golf course lands. A. Reasons for Opposing This Development 1. Cherry Downs Co -Venture Ltd. has applied to be exempted from OPA 60 in order to circumvent Durham Region's wise prohibition of communal servicing in rural areas except for health or environmental reasons - but the proposed 125 -home development will do extreme health and environmental damage and there are no existing health or denvironmental problems that would outweigh the damage that this evelopment would perpetrate. Suburban housing developments of the kind Cherry Downs plans to build are of the "sprawl' type - a community planted in the middle of a rural region, but close enough to the metropolitan region of Toronto that 28q ATTACHMENT# I 1 TO INFORMATION REPORT# ij;,-n1 Cherry Downs 2 it will multiply car use as residents drive to and from Toronto, polluting air and waterways as they go. These vehicles are Ontario's number one source of smog -causing pollution, accounting for approximately 30 percent of smog precursors - nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. t • 2. Increased demand for roadways. Increased car use results in increased demand for roadways and highways - and highways multiply private vehicle use, resulting in a vicious circle of increased car use, more roads, and even more car use and higher and higher levels of air and water and soil pollution (including run-off from heavily salted winter roads). How would you be planning to stop this cycle by acceding to Cherry Downs' request? Any acquiescence on this would make no sense. 3. The increased road building and sprawling housing developments that would result from bowing to Cherry Downs' appeal wilt destroy acres of prime farmland • which is becoming a scarce commodity in the GTA. Between 1976 and 1996, 150,000 acres of farmland were lost in the GTA. At that rate (almost one acre every hour!), we will lose another 165,000 acres in the GTA (most of the rest) by the year 2021.2 In an era of climate change, when international food sources are threatened by extreme weather conditions and countries all over the world are paving farmland at breakneck speed, it is foolish to destroy Canada's very best. 4. The Cost of Urban Sprawl. According to the Report of the GTA Task Force (the Golden Report),3 urban sprawl of the outdated Cherry Downs' variety will cost GTA taxpayers $12 billion EXTRA in initial infrastructure costs over the next 25 years4 and WILL COST GTA TAXPAYERS ONE BILLION DOLLARS EXTRA EVERY YEAR FOREVER in maintenance and service costs. . Open Doors (Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario) (Toronto: Queen's Park, 1997). 2 OTA Federations of Agriculture, GTA Agricultural Economic Impact Study, 19 November 1999, pp. u and iv. 3 Report of the GTA Task Force (Golden Report), Toronto: Publications Ontario. January 1996, p. 111. Dated from 1995. 281 ATTACHMENT #.11 TO INFORMATIONREPORT# C?`) - 01 Cherry Downs 3 Sprawling housing developments are also a drain on the coffers of local governments - costing more to service and maintain than property owners contribute to the municipality. U.S. studies have indicated that "for each dollar of farmland property taxes collected, the municipality spent from 21 to 77 cents on services for farmland properties" -.a net gain. The picture for residential developments, however, was stunningly bleak: "for each dollar collected in taxes, an average of $1.14 was spent on services."5 Preserving farmland for locally grown, fresh food is a financial gain - it makes good business sense. Suburban sprawl is a Rnanical disaster for taxpayers and 'for municina&ices 5. Furthermore the ro osed develo ment is within the borders o a PERMANENT AGRICULTURE RESERVE. An a. . yal o an a ealconcernin an OPA Amendment that would promote buildin houses in an a riculture reserve would be a PLANNING TRAVESTY and a DISASTER for years to come The lands also contain an .Environmental) Si ni ceant Area (ESA]. 7. An important Wildlife Area and coldwater fishery exists in Duffins Creek and its tributaries (e.g., Mitchell Creek, Spring Creek). 8. There will be detrimental effects on surrounding wells and ground water through (a) water taking and (b) spewing out treated sewage on the golf course, to irrigate the course. 9. The proposed development is to be an exclusive community, with no benefits to the rural communities of Claremont or Greenwood. 10. The,development would use up most of the remaining rural population growth targets to the year 2016 set in Pickering's Official Plan, 11. There are eight rare plant species in the area, as well as habitat for the red -shouldered hawk (nationally vulnerable, uncommon to rare provincially and scarce in Durham Region). 3 GTA Federations of Agriculture, OTA Agricultural Economic lnipaci Study, 19 November 1999, p 7.3. 2 BS ATTACHMENT# ! i TO INFORMATION REPORT# (3 - Cheriy Downs 4 12. What guarantees can the developers and Durham Region give residents of Durham and the GTA that this is not just the beginning of a massive development in the area? 13. Why should Durham be so uncreative and blind as to follow the outdated approach that has ruined the aesthetic, agricultural, long- term financial, and environmental health potential of so many municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area and elsewhere in Ontario and North America? Durham has the opportunity to set GTA precedents to foster "smart growth" - more compact but still eminently liveable - in fact more liveable - developments that require less maintenance and servicing costs and promote walling, commuter train service, close-knit, mixed- use neighbourhoods and better health for all - instead of smog -spewing roads and suburban sprawl! B. Future input regarding this appeal. 1 would like to be notified of any meetings, discussions, and/or hearings pertaining to this appeal. Yours truly, 287- ATTACHMENT#i 2 TO INFORMATION REPORT #_ Conservation Durham 23 August 2000 Mr. Alex Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Box 623 Whitby, Ontario L1N6A3 Dear Alex, 7+4 21N7 AUG 2 8 2000 oa7- OoS" I am writing in response to the notice of public meeting re submitted by Cherry Downs Venture Ltd e garding file number OPA 2000-005, the application communal services in the Municipality of Pickeri Q it a country residential development of 125 units using private following: There are several points which must be made in regard to this public meeting and application, including the 1. Although the guidelines required by the Planning Act to the residents within 120 the property have been followed, and an advertisement wast piflaced in the local paper, givenmeters the of history of this developer's proposals over the last 7 years, the time allowed to notify the public of this meeting is insufficient and furthermore there is a direct conflict of timing with the OMB re-hearin scheduled at exact! the same time in a different location and direct! affecting the same members of the ubtic. I only discovered about this meeting because one of the abutting neighbours received his notification. For these reasons alone, I request another public hearing be held, after consultation with stakeholder groups and individuals who have expressed and continue to express their concerns over this proposed development (eg., Conservation Durham, Green Door Alliance, Durham Action Network, Durham & Pickering Naturalists, etc.) 2. The Permanent Agriculture Reserve is exactly that: permanent. It is hardly the time for the Region to be considering lowering its standards and letting the floodgates -open to the developers - please see the attached GTSB (August 2000) "A GTA Countryside Strategy", wherein the facts speak for themselves. This land represents the perfect case study of why our Official Plan has prohibited development on it - it is rural, it is part of the Duffins Creek Watershed which provides valuable fish breeding/habitat and fresh water to Lake Ontario (not to mention the wells of surrounding residents), contains an ESA, and is picturesque beyond belief. Protect it now from rampant urban sprawl - if ever allowed, this development would be the end of protecting any land in rural Durham from development. In addition it is unwanted (see attached copy of petition signed mainly by residents in the area, although as a "test" we began to ask for signatures in . South Pickering, only to discover that well over 90 % of those residents were also opposed to the Pickering resolution mentioned below.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the present allowance for any new rural development only 50 houses? Should we try to accommodate this application for 125 homes merely because the developer doesn't make a profit on anything under 100? Even if the application were reduced to 50, we should oppose it because the next step would be to apply for 100, or 200, or ... we simply can't afford to let the camel into the tent - ever! 2 81 - 'RS Claremont,O'u LIY IA2 Attention: Angie Jones Tel/Fax: 905-619-5480 e-mcrik corrmn ioncha j Ca�i�icn ar ATTACHMENT #T0 INFORMATION REPORT #Z12.:2-1-- 3. SL+�� missing ormation: siich as ion 3. 3. AfterAp lications and Approvals" where it is noticedhEarly Release of Report, I stated that In 1996, the applicants revised the "Previousous App proposal ..." where in fact the applicant's housing proposal was defeated by overwhelming g lic opposition this information is every bit as important as the applications made! In fact the earlier attempt in 1993 was also defeated. Their subsequent application for an expansion to the f golf course anisthat since that timepnpo work hwas commenced to either owever another im e xt • and the • olf course orr waex and club house : was rhdevelo ment s of • •o:re ever an tosalon ?. Has work ealready begun on the well to service the proposed et another proposed development? How deep will the well be? How much water will it take? What methods will be used to "discourage" birds from using the ponds? Another point raised in the Cherry Downs documentation is how compact the proposed subdivision would be (thereby implying that it wouldn't "ruin" as much of the natural setting.) There is another, more obvious way to view compact development - it clears the ground for Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV, etc. etc. etc. In Major Open Space and Permanent Agricultural Zones, the one loop -hole for developers seems to be the "recreation" designation given to golf courses. Surely it should be apparent by now that this developer has always had the ulterior motive of planting an urban -style development on the golf course! 4. Given the outbreak of information about Ontario's water and air pollution record of late, the Region should be asking for a moratorium on all such development proposals (including golf courses given their ability to turn into housing applications later on) in the rural areas of Durham, let alone in the Duffins Creek Watershed. We do not have sufficient information on the long- term ongiterm effects of the use of communal servicing in such areas, and do not want to pay the costs in the future for degrading this watershed today. How much water is Cherry Downs already taking for its private golf club house and course use? Is this monitored? As I'm certain you are aware, there is still a request to take water on the EBR registry for the additional golf course and clubhouse for which ClubLink was given approval in 1996 although never acted on: presumably this is now invalid as the intended use of the water taking has changed. Does the Region have any information on this request to take water? Will we be informed in time to oppose any such request at the Ministry? Was a request for permission to take water ever made for the present golf club & course on the lands? 5. Attached is a copy of the Pickering Council resolution from last year (moved by Regional Planning Committee member Doug Dickerson, seconded by Mark Holland) following an invitation by Mayor Arthurs for ClubLink to give a so-called "status report" on their "anticipated application" for housing, conference centre on private communal servicing on the Cherry Downs property: before the Region's OPA 60 had been decided by overwhelming majority of full council . This "creative" approach to the Planning Act should certainly not be encouraged at the Regional level! Also enclosed is a copy of the Durham Business News (unsigned) article following this resolution (which, for your information, was also opposed by many local residents at both the Executive and Council -of Pickering meetings at that time) wherein the project is . touted as something which will be of great benefit to the Region, as if it were a "fait accomplis". The story ran right above an article outlining how ClubLinks' profits had soared in 1993... interestingly, the "new" application is under a different name, Cherry Downs Co -Venture Ltd. Why? And just one more question here: does the Region have the authority to request Pickering's position on this application at this time? Especially given that it is an election year, it would be a shame if the voters were not notified of any municipal position before the matter can be sloughed otT as an OMB decision! 28J� ATTACHMENT #-3 TO INFORMATION REPORT 6. The TRCA Glen Major complex of properties (I am a member of theirMa as Board) includes the'Claremont Field Centre & Durham Environmental Education Centre property adjacent to the Che � gement Advisory proposed 1 25 -home development on thelands. Attached is a copy of the TRCA response to the there should - opposition bygolf course property, voicing its opposition. Good - although there are some questions bodyr undo uible nr conserving doubtedly be raised during this application nature for future generations, process, not the least of which is the very 10 -metre top of bank minimum itself there are many modern proponents of revisiting Pp ion TRCA Watershed of revisiting this number and increasing it fot Directr various situations. Given that eenwood information m on the Dufiins-Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Force publicly r Brian Denney at the rstat d that the TRCA is ,tongtself looking into the 10 -metre rule, how can there be any rush at all to hu rry this a plication 7. The Durham Region Environmental Education Centre is another good reason to halt hisalong?. application - to bring children out to this truly conserved natural setting if a private urban -style development were permitted right next door would make a mockery the traffic increases alone on the 7°i concession and 12th sideline and related noise and air pollution would render it more like a municipal park in an urban subdivision! education centre - 8. The rural character would be irrevocably damaged by any alien development in this pristine, natural setting: the hamlets of Greenwood and Claremont would not benefit, in fact, history has shown that the local farmers would suffer as soon as the new residents began to complain about the farm activity (such as the subdivision dweller in Whitby who complained about the flies because of the dairy farm next door). These residents will not become a living, organic part of the communities which already exist here, and will continue to exist as a separate "lifestyle community." When will they want a 2 4 -hour store on the corner? A This area of Durham already has a community lifestyle - it does not need to A shopping mall? be disenfranchised by a private, "lifestyle community"! It will ruin: not only the nature of our life in this countryside, but permanently damage the picturesque view of the valley. ?. The Procter & Redfern study commissioned by the Region determined that privately owned and operated communal services would encourage urban sprawl and was not recommended for rural areas. These conclusions are exactly as valid today as when they were drawn - nothing has changed. 0. The property is the habitat of the Red Shouldered Hawk, a species which is nationally vulnerable and provincially uncommon to rare as well as home to at least 8 rare plant species. 1. With respect to the fact that the Mayor and Pickering Council promised after the public defeated the ClubLinks 1995 housing development application that the members of the public who had voiced their opposition would be notified in future of any ClubLinks applications for housing on the Cherry Downs lands: last year, during the famous Resolution fiasco, Mayor Arthurs said that since there was no application, just a "status report", the public had not been contacted. Since Cherry Downs Co -Venture Ltd began its application on 21 June, 2000 at the municipality of Pickering (the day before the OMB pre -hearing on OPA 60 which Cherry Downs is appealing, and somehow is allowed to be at that hearing despite the 90 -day rule) we are wondering why Pickering has not yet notified those persons? Or at least notified the Region that such a promise was made, especially given that one of Pickering's Regional Councillors, Doug Dickerson, sits on the Planning Committee. -Jere are many other reasons to just say no to this application at the Region, not the least of which is at this developer is already at the OMB appealing the Region's wise decision to forbid communal -- 2 8/ ATTACHMENT#.,TO INFORMATION REPORT # n,��I)I servicing for new developments in the rural areas. What is gotg on ith our Shouldn't a panning ublic process tmehat this meeting can be held the same day and time as the OMB pre -hearing? be held when members of the public are able to attend (i.e., after working hours)? I respectfully submit again that another public meeting is called for in these circumstances. Thanks in advance for your attention to this letter and enclosed attachments, Truly yours, Angie Jones Executive Director - Conservation Durham Inc: Attachments: GTSB Publication "A Greater GTA Countryside Strategy" (revised June & August 2000) Copy of petition vs. ClubLink non -application in June, 1999 Copies of letters (only those included in the December 1995 Pickering Release of Report) from residents who opposed the development Copy of Pickering Resolution #131/99, Item #5 passed on 21 June, 1999 Copy of Durham Business News article (August 2000) Copy ofTRCA response to application by Cherry Downs Co -Venture Ltd. Copy of EBR Registry Notification for Water Taking Permission by ClubLink for Cherry Downs Golf Course & Clubhouse expansion 28L- ATTACHMENT #i3 To INFORMATION REPORT# O2- of '� • I' �= S T A I R W. G I L L iC li P• t $. 24 August 2000 VIA FAX: 1-905436-612 Mr. Alex Georgieff, M.C.LP Commissioner of Planning Durham Region - C/o Barbara, Hodgins, Senior Planner Box 623. Whitby, Ontario LiN 6A3 Re: REGIONAL FILE NO. OPA2000-005 - Dear Mr. Georgieff: I would Tike to register my strong objection to the proposed country - residential development on lands designated Permanent Agricultural Reserve in the City of Pickering. As you must know there is at least a 7 -year history of community interest and involvement in this and related issues. I have appeared before the Pickering Council and its Committees. I have also appeared before the Regional Committee and the first OMB pre - hearing. Unfortunately I cannot be present for this hearing. The decision to hold a public meeting on August 29th will offend many concerned residents. Quite apart from the short notice during a period of summer vacations the meeting date also conflict directly with the OMB hearing slated for 10:00 a.m. on August 29th. 1 2 8 G ATTACHMENT#1_3_TO INFORMATION REPORT# Page 2 Mr. Alex Georgieff 24 August 2000 I strongly oppose the Cherry Downs application to amend the Durham Region Official Plan and permit 125 homes on their golf course lands. Yours sincerely, ALASTAIR W. GILLESPIE AWG/sk 2045 Uxbridge/Pickering Townline Ciarmont, Ontario L1Y 1A1 w-1 28if ATTACHMENT# ISI TO tNFORMATIONREPORT# I From: Jessica Markland <jmmarkl @yahoo.com> To <planning@region.durham.on.ca> • Date; 08/25/2000 2:47PM 'Subject: Regional File No. OPA 2000-005 Attention: Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner 1 am opposed to the application by Cherry Downs to build up to 125 houses on this site. There are numerous reasons why this proposal is undesirable, some of which are quoted below; 1. Urban sprawl and all the external costs it implies (schools, traffic, air & noise pollution, fire services, police, more taxes etc. etc.) 2. Location on Permanent.Agriculture Reserve 3. Important Wildlife Area and coldwater fishery in Duffins Creek and its tributaries, eg. Mitchell Creek, Spring Creek 4. Impact on surrounding wells and -ground water of (a) water taking and (b) spewing out treated sewage on the golf course to irrigate it 5. Claremont Field Centre and Durham Environmental Education Centre is situated immediately beside the lands 6. There are 8 rare plant species and the Red -shouldered Hawk (nationally vulnerable, uncommon to rare Provincially and scarce in Durham Region) Blue -winged Warbler (locally or regionally uncommon). 7. Given the scathing reports on Ontario's water (and air) pollution since Walkerton, shouldn't there be a moratorium on all such proposed developments until a proper provincial policy and relevant environmental studies are performed? Please register my emphatic opposition to this application. Thank you. Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ _' I 28F ATTACHMENT INFORMATION REPORT #S - ATTENTION ; COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING c% Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner FAX: (905) 436-6612 Commissioner of Planning Box 623. Whitby. Ontario LIN 6A3 Re :- REGIONAL FILE NO. OPA 2000-005 As a concerned resident of North Pickering I am registenng my oppos'nion to any and all changes to Durham Regional Plan Amendment 60, currently prohibiting the use of shared water/ sewage services in Lural areas except for extraordinary reasons. It is felt that privately operatedlth comzards,m nal water t only to the supply and /or sewage treatment facilities run a high risk of creating potential users of such facilities but also to neighbouring residents. Any deviation from the Official Plan, at once becomes precedent setting and sustaining. 1 am Ibrther opposed to the Durham Region Official Plan which would permit Cherry Downs Co -Venture Ltd. to develop their proposed "satellite community" the public meeting for which is scheduled for 29I' August, 2.090. My main reasons, (not necessarily in order of priority). for opposition to the proposed development are as follows .- 1. Rapid depletion of"Prime, Permanent, Agricultural Reserve Lands" 2. The rural population growth targets of the Pickering Official Plan up to year 2016 are approaching pre- set levels. 3. Possible increase in traffic density through Greenwood and North Westney Road areas. a, The proposed development is on, of in the vicinity of an Environmentally Significant Area. Further to this point I would add that 1 have persdnally been affected by "developer- paid environmental surveys and studies, Thcy are invariably, biased in favour of the appticantand rarely depict a true picture, Please let the foregoing serve to register me as a participant for the hearings. I shall look forward to being updated on all proceedings and decisions regarding the matter. Yours truly, Q.\ • Barrie & Marion Thomas 3378 Westney Road R.R. 11 1 Locust Hill, Ontario, LOH 1JO . Tel. (905) 683-4577 28 ATTACHMENT# l 6 TO INFORMATION REPORT ,J U LTUL 27 ' 88 81: r. c vv v , , , ,, ,,4;rPM DU HAM PLANNING DEPT Is In Transport Canada Transports Canada Ontario Region Region de I'Ontaria Programs Programmes x900 Yonge Street Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5 July 27, 2000 Ms. Barbara Hodgins, MCLP, RPP Senior Planner The Regional Municipality of Durham Box 623, 1615 Dundas St. E. Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Dear Ms_ Hodgins: NU, 2i19 Tel: 416-952-0511 Fax: 416-952-3328 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2000 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Application to Amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, File OPA 2000-005 Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd Reference is made to your July 4 and July 7, 2000 letters regarding the application by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. to designate a 125 unit residential subdivision in association with the existing Cherry Downs golf course. As you are aware the proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border of the federal lands being retained for a possible future airport in Pickering. Accordingly, we remain concerned with any proposed development that would be considered incompatible with airport operations. Transport Canada Publication TP 1247 "Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports", provides guidelines for land uses which would be incompatible with airport operations. Aircraft Nolte The Official Noise Contours for apossible future airport at Pickering remain to be based on the original 1986 conceptual runway layout and traffic mix, Canada rP. 2/3 ATTACHMENT#_.TO INFORMATION REP0flT - �UIJUL 27 '00 01� VPN PLANNING DEPT LI• Lvuv 15. NU, Zitly rP.37:3 For the proposed Cherry Dom residential subdivision, the location of the development as depicted in the June 2000 Planning Analysis, prepared by )3ousfield, Dale -Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc., would appear to be bordering the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 30. TP 1247 provides that: Annoyance caused by aircraft noise may begin as low as NEF 25. It is recommended that developers be made aware of this fact and that they undertake to so Inform all prospective tenants or purchasers of residential units, In addition, it is suggested that development should not proceed until the responsible authority, is satisfied that acoustic insulation features, if required, have been considered in the building design. Furthermore, we should caution that due to its proximity, any new runway layout reconfiguration could potentially place the subject property at higher NEF contours. Ij azar • Aircraft zoning regulations prohibit the use of land outside airport property boundaries where such land uses are hazardous to aircraft operations, Treated effluent and stormwater retention ponds such as the ones proposed are identified as bird attractants. TP 1247 provides that remedial action may be a viable alternative to the exclusion of a particular land use from an arca around the airport, 'Therefore, the proponent should be required to identify mitigating measures designed to reduce the attractiveness to birds. As you are aware, the Cherry Downs property is subject to Ontario Regulation 102/72 (Minister's Zoning Order), as amended, which applies to lands surrounding a potential future airport at Pickering. The Department continues to support the application of this Order as it relates to the subject property. In addition to the above, we generally view the development of residential communities in close proximity, and potentially under the aircraft approach path, to be inconsistent with good planning practices. if you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Patricia Short -Galla Regional Manager Greater Toronto Area Programs c_c._ Mr. Joe Muto, Community Planner, Ministery of Municipal Affairs and Housing. ATTACHMENT#I 1 TO 60 INFORMATION REPORT# AUG 04 ' e4:09PM DURHAM PLANNING DEPT The Regional Municipality of Durham HEALTH DEF'AiTIM ENT Head Office 7615 Dundas Street East Suite 210' Whitby, Ontario ' Pahada L1N 2L1 (905) 723.8521 Fax: (905) 723.6026 Tor: (905) 666-2740 1-800441-2729 • July 24, 2000 Durham Region Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor • Whitby, Ont. LIN6A3 Attention: BarbaraHodgiirs . Dear Madam: Re: O.P.A.. 2000-005 ClubLink Corporation Lot 13 —15 Conc. 7 Pickerin P. 5i6 y' r,;,X . ;.. JUL 2 7 2000 FILE fr 002'C.Y" The above --noted application has been investigated.by•tliis Department and we offer the,following for your consideration: (i) the proposed.private sewage disposal system will be.sized'for >10,000 litres/day which will require the review and approval of the IVTinistry of Environment for a large onsite sewageworks/cornttiunal system. Reel free • ersigned if more information id needed. • Yours Karl Kiproff, B -AA., (E.H.), C.P.H.L(C) Public Health Inspector KK/do I 00% Poet Cora $umey ATTACHMENT#.J._TO 0 INFORMATION REPORT # 5--'/&0? 6O U - 0 o,3 «VTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drlve, Downsvlaw, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6696 htlp://www.lica.on.ca August 18, 2000 Ms. Barb Hodgins Planning Department, The Regional Municipality. of Durham 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor Lang Tower, West Building P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Dear Ms. Hodgins: Re: New Application to amend the Durham Regional Official Pian File No. OPA 2000-005 Part Lots 13 to 15, Concession 7 City of Pickering (Clublink Corporation)• 1 CFN 31539 RECEINt AUG 2.4 2001 CITY OF PICKEF PICKERING, ONTAI RECEIVE© • AUG 2 a .2000 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We acknowledge receipt of the above noted application and cannot recommend approval at this time. The proposal is to provide policies for the use of communal services and to designate a 125 unit residential community in association with the expanded Cherry Downs Golf Course. The submission includes among other documents a report entitled "Recreational Residential Community Planning Analysis" prepared by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. This report provides a general summary of the proposal and notes that amendments to the City of Pickering Official Plan, the City's Zoning Bylaw and a Ministers Zoning Order are required for the residential development. The proposal notes that the golf course club house and expansion has been previously approved. TRCA staff were involved extensively in the planning history since August 1993 when the applicant applied for the golf course expansion, four residential pods, a commercial block and communal servicing. After years of discussions, the golf course expansion and club house component only, of the previous application, received conceptual approval by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). This conceptual approval was sufficient to support the TRCA's recommendation for approval of the planning applications for the golf course expansion subject to conditions which have not yet been satisfied. We note that permits under Ontario Regulation 158 have not been obtained for the golf course expansion. This new proposal does not appear to involve any changes to the golf course expansion configuration. However, with the new residential component a number of servicing changes are being contemplated including the use of treated water from the communal servicing systern to irrigate the golf course as well as the construction of stormwater management facilities. These • changes may potentially have a negative impact on the Mitchell and Spring Creeks which flow throuah the subiect site. ATTACHMENT#I TO INFORMATION REPORT# 0 )," 0 Ms. Barb Hodgins 2 August 18, 2000 The planning analysis report provided suggests that a Communal Servicing Feasibility study is being prepared. At a minimum, the report should provide the necessary information to support the proposal for combined communal servicing for the residential and golf course development scheme. This study should include among other matters, information on the location of the facility and various servicing components (ie. pipeline crossings), the impacts on water quality and quantity and, impacts on base: f low of the adjacent creeks. Also we note that the current hydrology and hydraulic models have to be updated to support the proposed development, The current models do not take.into account this development.: We identify that regional control •may be required given the outcome of this update. We provide the following specific comments on the development proposal based on the plans providedwith the application and contained within the planning analysis report. The residential developmentis proposed on tableland and for the most part is separated from the natural systems by the existing and proposed golf course expansion. The exception is with the larger residential pod which abuts a tableland woodiot and a portion of the Spring Creek Valley, The woodiot is part of the. Environmentally Significant Area and the dripline of the. woodiot has not been staked. Sufficient ecological buffers would be required to protect the sensitive species within the woodlot(ie.Red Shouldered Hawk). An Environmental Impact Study would be required to determine the extent to which the residential pod may have to be revised to maintain the features and functions of the woodiot. Further, appropriate ecological buffers • have not been determined from the Spring Creek Valley in accordance with the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. This policy document requires a minimum buffer of 10 metres from the greater of the stable top of bank and/or the Environmentally Significant Areas. The smaller residential pod containing larger lots serviced by private septic systems appears to be setback from the Spring Creek. However as part of the discussions on the golf course • expansion proposal, modifications were being considered on the Spring Creek in order to move an existing pond off line and enhance the valley corridor. These considerations may result in the need for a greater setback for some of the lots within the smaller 'residential pod. The site plan' provided also identifies the location of a roadway to facilitate the clubhouse and parking north of Spring Creek and south of the western tributary on the subject site. The roadway appears to encroach within the western tributary corridor. The limits of this corridor needs-tobe confirmed and the road sufficiently set back in accordance with the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor. Management Program noted above. • A new pathway is proposed connecting the residential pod with the proposedroadway to the north. The location of the pathway needs to be confirmed in the field to ensure that the final alignment would not have a negative impact on the Spring Creek Corridor. 3 Ms. Barb` Hodgins ATTACHMENT# l 'TO INFORMATIONREPORT# O2 i _3_ August 18, 2000 The planning analysis states that a stormwater management pond is proposed to serve the larger residential precinct and a tentative location is n.oted between hole Nos. 2 and 17. Depending on the final location, there may be impacts to portions of Spring Creek. Staff will. require a preliminary stormwater management report for the subject proposal. As noted prior, the golf course expansion was approved.with a number of conditions which have•not been satisfied. The residential development is inextricably tied to the golf course because of the required water budget analysis including communal servicing but also addressing Irrigation, stormwater management and the resulting environmental impacts of that • . activity. The planning analysis presented for the residential component provides a general indication of the changes•to the water budget scheme related to communal but does not . provide sufficient information to address the outstanding conditions with the golf course . expanslon(see attached letter) and the residential proposal. • ' Given the above outstanding information, staff reiterate that we cannot support the proposed planning applications at this time. We would be prepared to meet with the applicant to discuss our comments indetail_and to address the issues•noted above. If you have any 'questions please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, /Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa cc: PlanningDepartment, Town of Pickering Jane Clohecy, TRCA Janet Foster, TRCA ATTACHMENT#i9 TO INFORMATION REPORT# Ns: 01 AUG_14_'00__11:57RM DURHAM PLANNING DEP1 AIR 9056767593 TO 919054366612 August 14, 2000 Ms. Barbara Hodgins, MCP, RPP Senior Planner The Regional Municipality of Durham Box 623, 1615' Dundas Street East Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Greater Toronto Airports Authority Lester a. Pearson International Airport P.O. Bo' 8031, 9111 Convair Drive Toronto AMF, Ontario, Canada UP 162 Dear Mr. Hodgins: Re; Application to Amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, File OPA 2000-005 Cherry Downs Co. Venture Limited I am writing in response to your letter of July 4th requesting the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (QTAA) to comment on the above -noted Official Plan Amendment application. Background The GTAA is a private not-for-profit corporation mandated to operate and develop ester S, Pearson International Airport (Pearson Airport) and to work toward an efficient system of airports throughout south-central Ontario. Part of this mandate includes an obligation to communicate regularly with communities and government on matters pertaining to this system of airports, As the operator of Pearson Airport, the GTAA is obligated to establish a noise management program, which includes, among other initiatives, the co-ordination of noise mitigation procedures for aircraft operating to end from Pearson Airport within a ten nautical mile distance from the airport. As pact of this program, the QTAA has worked diligently to ensure that the importance of Pearson Airport is recognized within the planning framework of applicable Official Plans in neighbouring communities. Cherry Downs Application The proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border of the federal lands (the PiQkering Lands) being r.etained for a possible future airport, ATTACHMENT# Iq TO INFORMATION REPORT# C O RUG,14,'00 _112,50AM DURHAM PLRNNIN6 DEPTAIR 9056767593 TO 9190543666rd Ms. Barbara Hodgins Regional Iviunicipality of Durham Re: Cherry Downs co. Venture Limited August 14, 20D0 Page 2 However, in light of the number of significant outstanding issues related Lo the design and operation of a possible airport on the Pickering Lands, and the degree to which these future decisions would influence the aircraft noise impact at the subject property, it is the view of the GTAA than the proposed development is premature and would not be consistent with good planning practices, The OTAA would be pleased to discuss this submission and/or the noise management program at Pearson with you or other officials from the Region at your convenience, Yours truly, GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Steve Shaw Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Communications ** TOTAL PRGE,03 ATTACHMENT #10.10 INFORMATION REPORT # -{ )1 • DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5A1 SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 MR. N. CARROLL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CITY OF PICKERING 1 THE ESPLANADE PICKERING ON L1V 6K7 POSTES CANADA (416)285-5385 (T) (416)285-7624 (F) l'ECEINE OCT 2 2000 CITY OFIN I KE IONG PICKE RE: APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DURHAM REGION FILE: S -P- 2000-03 CROSS REF.NO.: OPA 2000-05 APPLICANT: CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE INC. LOTS: 13-15 REF. NO.: 65261 CITY OF PICKERING PICKEnING Atqfi Dear Mr.C/I- R2a L_L Thank youorf the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. Please note our new conditions below. As a condition of draft approval, Canada Post requires that the owner/developer comply with the following conditions: - The owner/developer agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. - The owner/developer will be responsible for notifying the purchaser of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sale. - The owner/developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. ATTACHMENT#.21,TO INFORMATION REPORT# i1 - ) I -2- The owner/developer will provide the following for each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans; - An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards. - Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access. The owner/developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planning Officer c.c. Barbara Hodgins, Durham Region A:UTILDRAW,SAM